Login
Most Thursday mornings you’ll find me in a co-working session with members of the Productive Flourishing Academy.
Part of the routine in our coworking sessions is to start off with a word pulled from a deck of motivational cards. My friend, the group leader, pulls the card, and the idea is to use the word that emerges to create alignment or a point of focus throughout your day.
When my turn came, she pulled the word “Relaxation”.
Ummm… no.
“I have a mountain of tasks ahead of me and I don’t have time to relax today,” was my instant reaction.
Luckily, I have my own set of this particular card deck, so before diving into the task I had planned (which ended up turning into this piece of writing) I decided to pull a new card. Take that, universe!
So what card did I pull?
“Risk.”
Well-played, universe. Well-played.
What am I supposed to do with these mixed messages? These two words — that are now at the forefront of my mind — seem to be at odds with one another.
As I moved into the work I had planned to do during this co-working session (namely a speech I had to give the following week for Toastmasters, a public speaking and leadership club I’m a part of in NYC), I couldn’t get these two words out of my head.
These ideas, risk and relaxation, don’t seem to fit together. More than that, they seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.
When I heard the word relaxation, what came to mind was an extreme state of rest, inaction, becoming sloth-like.
To enter a relaxed state is something too often we feel we need to earn. I’m allowed to just relax? Without doing anything or accomplishing anything first?
So when my friend pulled that card for me, I rebelled. Because I have a too-long list of things that need to get done (yep, violating the 5 Projects Rule) before I can even think about allowing myself to relax. Calm will have to wait.
I recognize this mentality runs counter to a lot of what has been written about here at PF, including pieces I myself have written. It just goes to show, we’re all in a constant state of learning and unlearning.
Still, relaxation is a self-care practice — and a necessity — we can all get behind. But risk? Risk seems to imply anything but rest and relaxation, and seems, well, downright dangerous.
Risk implies action, making a change, getting uncomfortable, and putting yourself in a position to fail (the horror!).
It’s inevitably scary to take a step in a new direction. Our minds and bodies perceive this newness as danger and set off all sorts of alarms to try to get us to do anything but this risky behavior — fight, flight, or freeze.
Taking action, no matter how big or small, is inherently risky.
But what happens if I put these two words together? What if relaxation didn’t need to mean a full and complete stop to any activity, but instead it could mean an easing in?
And what if risk didn’t require actual danger but simply meant trying something new? What if it was just about easing into the discomfort of putting myself in a slightly different position than yesterday?
And as I was thinking all these thinks, and most definitely not writing my Toastmasters speech, it dawned on me that the exact combination of these themes — getting more comfortable (relaxation) with being uncomfortable (risk) — is one that continues to show up in my life.
A recent example: I’ve been starting to get back into writing. More specifically, I’m starting to share my writing more frequently. Risk.
I’m leaning more and more into my instinct, and how it relates to both writing and sharing; this article is an example. Relaxation.
Ease can be about letting go. Letting go of expectations, of perfectionism, of the outcome. And that is inherently risky. Where are you holding on too tight? What small action can you take today to move yourself closer to where you want to be?
The post Relaxing Into Risk appeared first on Productive Flourishing.
The Sanskrit philosophical school called Vaiśeṣika is the one most directly dealing with ontology. Its fundamental text is the Vaiśeṣikasūtra, which is commented upon by Prāśastapada in the Pādarthadharmasaṅgraha (from now one PDhS) (the following is a summary of Padārthadharmasaṅgraha ad 8.7).
The school distinguishes substances and qualities. The first group includes four types of atoms (earth, water, fire, air) and then aether, time, space, ātmans and internal organs (manas). The latter are needed as a separate category, because they are point-sized and therefore not made of atoms, unlike the external sense faculties.
Among the 17 qualities, it recognises parimāṇa or dimension'. This encompasses at first two possibilities, namely atomic (aṇu), or extended (mahat). The former covers partless entities that have allegedly no spatial dimension, like points in Euclidean geometry and atoms themselves. These are considered to be without extension and permanent through time (nitya). The latter is subdivided into mahat and paramahat. The first covers all objects one encounters in normal life, from triads of atoms (imagined to be of the size of a particle of dust, the first level of atomic structure to be extended) to the biggest mountain. These entities have parts and extension and have an origin and an end in time. The second subdivision covers special substances, listed as ākāśaaether’, space, time and ātmans, which need to be imagined to be present at each location. Such entities are also imagined to be nitya, that is permanent through time. In other words, they are present at each location of time and space.
The above also implies that entities considered to be permanent through time can only be either atomic or all-pervasive.
However, space, time, aether and selves (ātman) are present at all locations in different ways.
About aether, to begin with, texts like Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī say that it needs to be accepted as a fifth substance in order to justify the diffusion of sound across multiple media. Texts of the Vaiśeṣika school, and of the allied school of Nyāya specify that aether does not occupy all locations, but rather is in contact with each individual atom):
[The aether’s] all-pervasiveness consists in the fact that it is in contact with each corporal (mūrta) substance.
(sarvamūrtadravyasaṃyogitvam vibhutvam (Tarkasaṃgrahadīpikā ad 14).)
This means that aether does not pervade atoms, but is in contact (saṃyoga) with each one of them.
This point is already explicit in the allied school of Nyāya, the Nyāyabhāṣya, and is needed because of the point-sized nature of atoms. If these were pervaded by aether, then they would have parts, and thus not be permanent. These undesired consequences are examined in the following:
This is impossible, because of the penetration through aether || NS 4.2.18 ||
It is impossible for an atom [to be] partless and permanent. Why? Because of the penetration through ether, that is, because an atom, if it were permeated, that is `penetrated’ by aether, within and outside, then, because of this penetration it would have parts, and due to having parts it would be impermanent.
Or, the aether is not all-located} || 4.2.19 ||
Alternatively, we don’t accept that. There is no aether within the atoms and therefore aether ends up not being all-located
(ākāśavyatibhedāt tadanupapattiḥ || 4.2.18 ||
tasyāṇor niravayasya nityasyānupapattiḥ. kasmāt. ākāśavyatibhedāt. antarbahiścāṇur ākāśena samāviṣṭo vyatibhinno vyatibhedāt sāvayavaḥ sāvayavatvād anitya iti.
ākāśāsarvagatatvaṃ vā || 4.2.19 ||
athaitan neṣyate paramāṇor antar nāsty ākāśam ity asarvagatatvaṃ prasajyeta iti.)
Aether is postulated as a substrate of sound (which can move through solids, liquids and air, thus proving that it has neither earth, nor water, nor air as substrate). Thus, it needs to be unitary (multiple aethers would not explain the propagation of sound, sound would stop at the end of the respective aether) and it needs to be present at all locations (for the same reason). More in detail: Only because of the unitary nature of aether is it possible for sound to travel between different loci. Otherwise, one would have to posit some mechanism to explain how the sound encountered in one aether travels to another one. Instead, the simpler solution is to posit that aether is necessarily both single (eka) and present at all locations (vibhu).
As for ātman, the self is by definition permanent (otherwise, no afterlife nor cycle of rebirths would be possible). It cannot be atomic, though, because the ātman is the principle of awareness and people become aware of things potentially everywhere. The fact that they don’t become perceptually aware of things being, e.g., behind a wall, by contrast, is only due to the fact that the ātman needs to be in touch (via the internal sense organ, manas, which is believed to be atomic and to move quickly from one to the other sense-faculty) to the sense faculties (indriya) in order for perceptual awareness to take place. Yogins are able to perceive things their bodies are not in contact with because their ātmans are omnipresent, like our ātman, and are able, unlike our ātman, to connect with other bodies’ sense faculties.
Within Sanskrit philosophy, Jaina philosophers suggested that the ātman is co-extensive with the body, since it can experience whatever the body can experience. Vaiśeṣika and other non-Jaina authors disagree, because this would lead to the absurd consequence of an ātman changing in size through one’s life.
A further element to be taken into account with regard to theories of location, and in particular while adjudicating whether they are about occupation or non-occupation is materiality.
Occupation of space seems to occur only from the level of atomic triads up to big, but not all-located, objects. Atoms are said to be mūrta and mūrta is usually translated as `material’, but taken in isolations, atom do not have parts and are only point-sized. In this sense, their being mūrta refers more about their being fundamental for material entities, rather than being material if taken in isolation. The distinction is theoretically relevant, but less evident at the pragmatic level, given that atoms are never found in isolation. Being mūrta is attributed to atoms of the four elements (not to aether) as well as to the inner sense organ (Nyāyakośa, s.v.), but not to ātman neither to aether.
Our culture glorifies youth. Even the word “old” is one we would prefer to avoid. Negative messages about age come at us our entire lives.
Throughout my life, I have heard people say: “So-and-so can’t do that, they’re too old.” Or there’s the notion that as a woman, you shouldn’t say your age. But the stigma around age is such nonsense, because getting older is a natural part of life. It happens to every person on the planet! Getting older should not be something to be feared.
At 43, I love my age.
Almost all of us know that ageism is out there. It’s a type of discrimination that touches almost every person at some point in their life or career.
Discrimination is unfortunately a subject I know far too much about — not only when it comes to age, but also because of my gender and race.
I live as a black woman in America. My race and gender are two things in this country that are constantly under examination. Every time I walk in a door, who I am and my capabilities are perceived differently once people see my face.
Having been through that my entire life, not only my adult life, but also as a child, I used to get so exhausted by the burden of caring what others thought. But what I learned from it was that being too tired to care anymore can be a powerful thing.
It’s good when you don’t want to put up with it anymore — that same old thing the world is giving you. Then it’s time to change the world.
My experiences inspired me to not care what people thought of me, and that remains the case now, with my age. I no longer allow myself to be limited by other people’s perceptions of me. Instead I focus on my inner strength, and the part of me that says, “I have to do this.”
Age Is Just a Number
Many people encounter ageism at some point in their career. And it’s not only reserved for women, or older people.
In a survey by Glassdoor, 30 percent of workers report experiencing ageism at some point in their careers, and most of the people who report it are actually younger (between ages 18 and 34).
Ageism is also insidious because it’s difficult to identify. Age means something different for everyone. Being a particular age doesn’t reveal a static truth about your person, your experiences, or your skills. As a black woman over forty, I reject people treating me worse or differently for my race or my gender, but I also reject discrimination based on my age — in the workplace or anywhere else.
When I had the life-changing opportunity to go to Africa last year for the first time, I witnessed firsthand that age there is associated with wisdom, as it is in many other places around the world. If you’re over the age of sixty, you are revered as a walking source of information, wisdom, knowledge, and life lessons.
You’re a living lesson for your children and grandchildren. We ought to respect that older individuals are sources of wisdom since they’ve been here longer. There is value in the time they’ve put in on this earth.
Younger people also have a different type of insight to share. Diversity of age, like every type of diversity, enriches our lives and the organizations we work in.
Embracing and Valuing Aging
Ten years ago, I likely wouldn’t have told you my age. Now, on the contrary, I am proud that I’m 43 and thriving. Age is not a curse; it’s a blessing. That I’ve been able to live for 43 years in this body with this face, these hands, or these teeth is a gift.
I’m grateful for the fact that I’ve lived this long, and come this far in the world — and I don’t take it as a given.
Your age is part of the magic about what and when you came into being on this earth. Your particular place and role on this planet, including how long you’ve been here, is all a part of what makes you special.
That’s how I always chose to confront racial discrimination when I encountered it. Instead of letting myself take on shame, or other people’s feelings about how I look, I chose to view my skin color as part of what makes me special.
I see my age as a sign of wisdom, which is built on a set of important experiences and years of building skills. I was not created to be anyone but me.
Coming Into My Own Power
The invisible ageism that we know is so widespread in society was still stuck in my head when, at age 29, I decided I wanted to become a fitness model.
At that point, I never told anyone how old I was. I knew in theory no one ought to be denied opportunities based on age. But the negative culture surrounding age has had an impact on me, as it has for so many of us.
In the modeling world, fifteen is considered the ideal age to start out.
At some point, I had to decide that my will was stronger than just a number. Part of it was I wanted to change the fitness modeling world so girls like me would be given more of a chance. I didn’t worry about how it was going to happen.
What motivated me was remembering how as a teenager, when I looked at fitness magazines in the checkout aisle, there were never faces that looked like mine. I remember thinking, why shouldn’t there be women who look like me? And after that: Why can’t it be me who proves that a woman who looks like me can be featured in a spread in a magazine?
Back then, I didn’t have an agent. I didn’t know anybody in the fitness industry. There was no blueprint.
Oxygen is one of the most influential fitness magazines for women of any skin color. I decided to contact the magazine directly with my portfolio. I created a mega-sized poster, superimposed with my own face and body, wrapped it in cellophane, and shipped it to the editor-in-chief of the magazine.
She called me the next day and told me everybody on staff couldn’t stop talking about it. Her exact words were, “You did what you were supposed to do, which was to get our attention.” In the next breath she asked if I could meet her in New York City for lunch; she wanted to see my abs in real life!
After our meeting, she said she didn’t need to see anything else. She was going to feature me. Flash forward a couple of months later; I was flown to Canada for a shoot. I was featured in Oxygen four more times within two years. Then I was featured in Shape magazine as one of the top three trainers in the United States (out of 300,000 trainers). Fitness RX for Women came next, and my portfolio just kept growing.
Why did all of this happen? It was simple. I saw the problem. I didn’t see girls like me and wanted to see a different reality.
What you create, at any age, doesn’t have to reach millions of people.
If there’s something within you that you have to pursue, it’s never too late to do so.
Maintaining Your Power and Tending Your Flame at Any Age
Modeling in my late 20s and early 30s led to other opportunities including, in my late thirties, headlining a major event at ESSENCE Festival — the kinds of achievements I hadn’t even dreamed about when I was younger. I also had my first child at 38.
Everything that’s happened to Nicole Chaplin has always happened later. It’s just always been that way.
And I like to think, what if all this is just the beginning?
People often ask about the choices I make to be as active as I am (and not just “at my age,” either). If I had to distill the mindset that allowed me to embrace my power, regardless of age, it would come down to the following:
Being devoted to a healthy lifestyle at any age often means making different choices.
As just one example, my friends know they cannot invite me anywhere if the event starts late, because I’ll definitely be going home before midnight. I value my early mornings; doing otherwise would throw off my whole week.
I live a holistic life, and I’ve been that person my entire life: always active, roller-skating, cheerleading, track and field. I was also a dancer, and a choreographer at the University of Miami. Fitness for me hasn’t been about wanting to be strong for its own sake. It’s about stamina. It’s as basic as this: I like to do a lot of things, and to keep doing all the things I like, I need energy.
As a result of the way that I live, my energy stays high (and sometimes it’s even hard to turn it down). My aim is always to have stamina and endurance, and to be heart healthy. God forbid I trip on the stairs — am I able to catch myself?
It’s the simple stuff. I want and need to be able to keep up with my five year old, Dominic Zion. My own mother used to work very hard, so that on Saturday mornings, she would lie in bed exhausted. I knew I didn’t want to feel like that with my children, and wanted the energy to play with my child.
Now DZ is playing soccer, and I am able to keep up. When he wakes up on a Saturday morning, I’m already up and ready for him. I want to enjoy life to the fullest — going to East Africa, swimming with turtles.
For a lot of folks, if something doesn’t happen by the time you’re like 25, they say, “Oh well, that wasn’t my path.”
What if instead we ask: What if we’re far from done?
The post Owning Your Power at Any Age appeared first on Productive Flourishing.
Having a rough day? These disappointing affirmations should cheer you right up! They're created by writer Dave Tarnowski, who describes himself on his Instagram as: "Bipolar/ADHD/mental health advocate. Realistic mental attitude."
They definitely aren't your run-of-the-mill inspirational sayings. I actually love their dark humor—they are so much better than those ubiquitous affirmations dripping with toxic positivity. — Read the rest
If you’ve ever used the phrase “deep work,” fetishized time-block planning, or fantasized about a workday unbesieged by pings and pongs, you may be a Cal Newport enthusiast. (In which case you’ll already have clicked the button below.) And if you haven’t, then Courtney Weaver’s enjoyable profile will explain why the unassuming Georgetown professor has become a guru of sorts for the disaffected office-jockey set.
Many digital tools introduced in recent years have made things worse. While it may take only a moment to check an incoming email or Slack message, the momentary distraction can seriously derail your mind from the task it was working on, making it harder to refocus. A senior partner at one of the big-four consultancies who identifies as a Newport fan told me that he had watched his firm succumb to “crappy meetings with no focus, too many people, and interminable poor PowerPoint” over Zoom, where many of the participants were disengaged and busy with other tasks. All of the internal meetings only hurt the firm’s ability to serve its clients. “Our work requires DEEP thought . . . It’s what our customers pay very high fees for!” he told me. “Insights only really start flowing after 45 minutes of deep absorption.”
A client recently wanted to problem-solve for working four days a week, but when she started explaining the problem, it wasn’t about the load of her days or how many days a week she worked. Deep down it was about work intensity, or how stressful it was for her to be working “at 100% efficiency” for 5-6 hours a day.
I pointed out that a really common pattern and a byproduct of efficiency crankers are they’re exhausted no matter how much actual work is on their plate. Even if/when we remove 25% of the work from their plate, the typical move among these folks is to then cut the amount of time they give themselves to do the work by 25%.
This has the net result of them being just as stressed about the work, no matter how much work is removed from their plate.
An additional part about this client’s scenario is that, partially because of the work we’ve done together, everything is great for her right now. Her business is working well, she’s getting the right clients, and she loves the work that she does. She has a new perfect-for-her romantic partner. Her health is great and far improved than when we started. She’s happy and doesn’t want much, which itself has become a challenge for her. (We’re working through the way her upper limit responses have gone guerrilla.)
So, in her circumstances, cutting an additional day of work wouldn’t make her better off and would create a lot of stress to get there. She’d work four days, just as intensely, and end up just as worn out.
Instead of cutting work, I asked her “what would you do if I asked you to be 15% slower?” We brainstormed a few “slow practices,” she might do in 5-10 minutes, like:
She’s still exploring whether it’ll be best for her personally to set a timer to initiate her slow practices and self-care or to sense when she’s needing to do one of these practices between tasks. The latter is better for most people after they have been practicing slow productivity for a while, but when folks are addicted to checking off tasks, it’s typically better to start with timers.
On the subject of timers, I happen to know she uses timers for her work. I chose to remind her that if she could use her timers to work, she could use timers to not work.
The obvious difference is that, in the latter case, she’d have to give herself permission to stop working, and that, weirdly, is going to take more discipline for her to do (to use her slow practices) than to work. (I’ve had A LOT of practice coaching folks on this topic, as it turns out, not the least because Angela struggles with this, too.)
This is one of those cases where the normal go-tos of subtraction do not work well. Adding some recovery practices to her day will create more vitality, joy, creativity, and richness in her work and life. Working an hour or day less at the same pace would not get her there.
We see many organizations who fumble this, too. Their response to burnt-out, overloaded workers is to switch to 4 days a week, but for many workers, that amounts to having to do the same amount of work in less time — it increases intensity without really addressing the workways and team habits creating more work than people can do in their compensated time. What really needs to be solved for is the load of work, not just the amount of days people work.
A 4-day work week boiled down to 10 hours of work a day can in some cases be a good solution for companies. For example, if someone commutes for an hour or ninety minutes per day, the additional day off makes a real difference.
These same companies would likely see a better result if they encouraged workers to do admin or remote work from home on Friday, or, better yet, to let teams decide when they need to work remotely and when they need to be co-located. No one wants to commute to do the same things they can do from home, and many people wouldn’t mind the commute as much if the work they were driving to do really got done better face-to-face or co-located.
What we really need to consider, though, is the mindset that causes people to work so intensely in the first place. Sometimes it’s what it takes to get the job done but other times there are more insidious things at play. The following are two more common reasons for the intensity, though:
Here’s the takeaway: if no matter how much work you do throughout the day, you feel like you’re panting and rushed, perhaps it’s not the amount of work you’re doing, but the pace you’re working at.
Consider ways in which, rather than just subtracting or decreasing the amount of hours or days you’re working, you can slow yourself down in order to be more intentional and calm about the ways you’re moving forward on your workload. Chances are with less anxiety produced by the high work intensity and overload, you might be more productive anyway.
Team Habits is coming this August and now available for pre-order at your favorite bookseller. And if you’re curious about identifying your team’s strength areas, growth areas, and challenge areas, take our Team Habits Quiz, a free, customized report to help you understand how your team works best together and how together your team does its best work.
The post What to Do When Work Intensity Is the Problem appeared first on Productive Flourishing.
As spring inches ever closer I can’t stop thinking about and planning what I’ll be putting into the ground this year. London-based LSA International’s new Balcony and Terrazza collections also have me dreaming up what I’ll be adding to my empty planters – and maybe a few new ones. Inspired by biophilia – our affinity to engage with the natural world – Balcony and Terrazza’s designs are sculptural and purposeful. Their individually mouth-blown glass pieces add a sense of calm to their surroundings by echoing patterns found in the natural world.
Balcony is a two-part, self-watering glass planter that uses sub-irrigation to deliver water straight to a plant’s roots via a cotton cord that wicks water from the built-in reservoir to the soil. Inspired by visually interesting terraced landscapes and offset city balconies, Balcony maintains a consistent level of soil moisture – ideal for plants who don’t like to dry out before their next drink. The two clear and olive green glass sections neatly fit together and are suitable for plants, bulbs, and herbs.
Sticking with a staggered profile, Terrazza is a collection of floor and desk planters ready to help you add green life to your space. The two-part planter features a mouth-blown glass planting bowl that nestles into a powder-coated steel base. The resulting column mimics high-rise terraces and roof gardens, creating a shelf-like formation, while an open channel in the base provides the plant’s roots with exposure to sunlight. Terrazza is a great option for growing trailing plants, as well as bulbs and herbs.
To learn more about Balcony and Terrazza, visit lsa-international.com.
I’d like to float the idea that self-worth is a fundamentally different thing from self-esteem or confidence.
People talk about these ideas as if they were each one and the same. But self-worth, I would argue, is our essential value as humans — our internal sense that we’re good enough no matter what happens on the outside. Ultimately, we need to be looking at our self-worth — our inherent value — if we want to fuel our best work.
This is also relevant when it comes to teams, even if folks may think self-worth is always a personal development discussion. Teams can also struggle with the gap between their abilities and the level they’re achieving at as a result of invisible floors and ceilings.
Over the years, in all the time that we’ve been running the Monthly Momentum Calls, I’ve often used the floors and ceilings metaphor for this catch-22 about our self-worth and ability to achieve at the level of our potential.
Ceilings are false limits that are imposed on us from outside, which we eventually accustom ourselves to, and which limit our ability to rise to the natural level we might belong at.
But the floors part is where things get interesting.
Floors equal our stabilizing force. We’re talking about the base of the house or structure you have built for yourself to live inside. That’s to say, what you built to keep you safe and comfortable, also limits you. (That’s a different take than the typical one on confidence, self-worth and limiting beliefs.)
It’s good to have stability, and to have safety, and especially if you had an experience where you lacked that, it will seem reaaally appealing to stay where you are rather than take any risks — except when that structure also starts to limit your growth and ability to do your own highest value work.
The problem with remaining just safe and comfortable is eventually, we forget that we’re the ones determining the confines of our lives. We wonder why we aren’t living and working at the level we are dreaming of.
Sometimes those limits are built for us by others, and sometimes we are the ones responsible for them. That can be a tough pill to swallow.
In a lot of cases, people have outgrown certain limits but still abide by those earlier limits without noticing.
Our issues with self-worth, and trust — and how this impacts our floors and ceilings — can arise no matter what stage or level of success we’re at in life.
Some people would probably call this “imposter syndrome.” Essentially though it’s all the same thing, where we haven’t done the necessary work to develop our sense of our intrinsic value.
Issues with our self-worth often show up especially when we run into big challenges.
Our courage to break through our floors and ceilings often shows up in relation to whether we let ourselves be seen and heard.
Big challenge moments, or leading through a turnaround, can change your life if you’re willing to embrace those challenges, rather than balking and backing down out of fear, and/or the desire for ease and security.
Those challenges can arise for us in different ways over time, depending on the point we’re at in our career, whether that’s as an individual employee, freelancer, leader or business owner. It can be uncomfortable to push your boundaries — which is usually a good thing — but the resistance comes when you don’t want to break the stability you’ve created within certain parameters.
For introverts this might become about protecting their privacy, or for many folks, we end up resting on the financial stability we’ve worked so hard to create — and in the process we end up having difficulty pushing beyond our comfort zones.
The point of course is that sometimes it’s the externally imposed ceilings that are holding you back, but other times it’s you that’s holding you back — out of fear of unmooring yourself from your stable ground.
If you’ve recognized that these forces influence you, and you’re ready to push outside your comfort zone (but maybe still encountering resistance), it may be worth asking yourself some questions:
What is hiding protecting you from? Is it a fear of burnout? Of being unmasked?
In order to break out of this pattern, we have to remind ourselves that there’s also pain or frustration — and often an even greater, deeper, and longer term sense of disappointment — in knowing what you’re capable of, but not ever reaching for it.
If you’re aware of what you don’t want to compromise on, it becomes a question of creating better boundaries.
You can think of your new boundaries as a new house, or structure with floors and ceilings YOU have chosen, rather than ones that have been chosen by other people or by your subconscious.
You’ll want to create boundaries in terms of how much space you want to give other people’s thoughts about you. You might not want to live within their idea of you anymore.
If you work in a particular industry, or with a particular type of client, for example, you might not immediately want to quit what you’re doing.
But you’ll want to ask yourself: What’s the floor? That is, what is the minimum amount of time or energy I can keep spending on X? What’s the ceiling? What is the maximum amount of energy I’m able to spend on it?
When you’re clear on your floors and ceilings, and you know you want to attend to all the things, you can also rest in the knowledge of what the limits are for the amount of time or energy that you are going to be able to put forth.
You’ll also need to know when to let it go and walk away. Knowing when to walk away is different than never standing up, and never letting your light shine.
For a lot of people I’ve worked with, the floors and ceilings we’ve grown accustomed to can be really difficult to shake, because they operate on autopilot. Even when you’re trying to change your behavior around self-worth and your boundaries, you might only realize two hours later, “Oh shoot, I did the thing again!”
Or sometimes you know in the moment that you’re playing it safe.
Sometimes you might be able to rely on someone else — a trusted friend or advisor — to see these dynamics with more clarity than you can yourself. It doesn’t necessarily have to be an adult you trust either.
Kids, for instance, are incredibly intuitive. If you have them, you’ll know that to be the case. And they pick up on everything. That means that when you’re planning and leading in your life, and through your work, you want to be thinking about what you’re modeling for them on the day to day.
Modeling often means showing them how they can live their hopes and dreams. So when you see the ways you’re modeling, try to consider shining as you really are. You don’t want to just pass down the stories that we got when we were kids, which might have been limiting — whether about our abilities, creativity, abundance.
When teams run into their floors and ceilings in terms of their performance, managers often look at what or who on the team is broken and needs to be fixed or replaced.
In my forthcoming book, Team Habits, I take a long hard look at that knee jerk reaction within companies. One of my basic assumptions is that people are not broken, incompetent or lazy.
Teams have the same capabilities as individuals when they dig deeply and help transform their floors and ceilings. If you have a rapport and trust with the four to eight people you work with on a daily basis, this is a conversation you might want to consider having.
Human talent can shift quickly when it’s given space to thrive. You teammates can rise to the occasion in ways you, and they, individually, could not.
The primary way you can start to shift your team’s floors and ceilings is through team habit shifts. Probably the first habit you might think about is how to increase team belonging and performance.
Belonging is the habit that most closely links to trust, which is the foundational issue when it comes to floors and ceilings.
Many teams will need to learn how to trust each other before they can perform. Their ability to excel beyond expectation will mean breaking through floors and ceilings that have been imposed from outside, or higher ups — or as a result of their individual doubts.
But trust and belonging is the key that will get them there. Once we start to figure that out, the bonding starts happening more, which means the performing starts happening. Then you get a reciprocal spiral in action. And that’s how you get on the road to having a great team.
Team Habits is coming this August and now available for pre-order at your favorite bookseller. And if you’re curious about identifying your team’s strength areas, growth areas, and challenge areas, take our Team Habits Quiz, a free, customized report to help you understand how your team works best together and how together your team does its best work.
The post Self-Worth and the Floors and Ceilings Metaphor appeared first on Productive Flourishing.
Brawny Ben Shapiro enjoys lecturing people on how to be masculine like him. On his popular incel podcast, he told his audience just what he thinks of Harry Styles, who wears dresses for photo shoots.
"Okay, other things that I hate, today," Ben told his viewers. — Read the rest
When I talked with Jia, who works for an e-commerce company in Shanghai, China, she was trying to finish a “Perfect Month Challenge” on her Apple Watch. That meant closing the rings on her watch every day for a month—achieving goals for standing up once an hour across all 12 hours, burning over 400kcal calories, and exercising 20 minutes. She was fully invested in this project, until Shanghai hit a lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2022, and she suddenly lost the streak. “The ‘firework’ after closing the rings is so nice, and the ‘Perfect Month’ sounds attractive to me,” she said, “I was drawn into exercising, and made a lot of progress, and setting myself a new goal every now and then. But this is also a source of anxiety and stress, and once I couldn’t keep up, I would just let go.”
This experience, from obsession to disappointment, might resonate with a lot of people who have made goals to track themselves, especially after Apple Watch and other trendy wearables took over the consumer’s market. Every time I introduce myself to a crowd and say what my research is about, I always ask “How many of y’all wear Apple Watch, Fitbit, or anything like that?” A few would raise their hands with some shiny gadgets around their wrists. I then ask “Do you love them? Hate them? Or—love and hate at the same time?” They will politely laugh, or nod, admitting that although “I like how it tracks everything,” but “it’s annoying sometimes,” or “I can’t really meet my 8,000 steps goal every day.”
It is a love and hate relationship, as we gain knowledge of ourselves by numbers, getting excited about the fun parts of self-tracking, while getting disheartened at the never-achieving goal of self-improvement. Described as the “bitter-sweet ambivalence,”[1] this technological intervention is not all smooth and positive but always carries the “not working out” part that delivers negative affective elements. In addition, the technological practices indicate another layer of bitterness—hidden labor. By quantifying our health, self-tracking makes explicit the points of actions for improvements. It blurs the boundaries of health and illness. We all have something to learn, to correct, to improve in order to reach a healthier status but never perfect. In a sense, self-tracking makes managing health harder, not easier.
We are asked by society to take the harder route. This implies deep attachment to the commercial interests and modern health ethics. The living experiences from the ethnography, the feelings, emotions, and interpretations from the users reveal how users situate themselves with numbers, and give us clues about the evolving relationship between humans and technologies of personal data collection.
A user checks their rings on their Apple Watch. Image by Anna Shvets, via Pexel.
As Jia’s experience indicates, rather than making progress and reaching goals as a linear, smooth process, which many of the self-tracking apps propose and promises to us, users’ patterns of use across time often look like this—a ‘fun’ period, a resolution filled with enthusiasm, followed by disruptions and bounce-backs, and the worst case, a total give-up. Health-related tracking apps have long struggled with the “adherence” or “compliance” of users’ continuous use.[2] Then, users often blame themselves for not being self-disciplined or determined enough to make change happen.
Of course, we love the idea of making progress, being self-realized, and productive. This love is shaped partly by how technology imagines each of us as a high-achieving consumer of health in a marketized world. We fail to do it, not because of us being lazy or lack of self-discipline; rather, it is the making of a datafied life,[3] “outsourcing” out experiences and perceptions to objectified numbers.[4] The sensors, apps, and health promotions produce the numbers, which encapsulate and glorify the idea of personal productivity while ignoring who we are and what we do.
Sometimes, the biggest promise of self-tracking apps is that they make exercising simple and smooth. Everything is recorded via wearable sensors, and all the interactive features will guide the users through various stages of their fitness journey. There are countless design tricks that give users a “nudge,”[5] a psychological term to describe that through certain mechanisms, people can be attracted, lured, or hooked to do something subconsciously. Things like a hot red button will make users eager to click. Designers believe that such mechanisms can also be put into good use, and make users easily “addicted” to what are considered optimally healthy behaviors. A nice sound effect after every exercise? Check. A friendly notification to push users to finish their daily walk? Check. A ‘level-up’ after every consecutive 10-day tracking? Check.
However, lived experiences often differ from the imaginaries of technologies. My research focuses on self-tracking and wearables in China, especially among the overworked—those who work in the notorious “996” schemes (9 a.m. to 9 p.m., 6 days a week). Health management is seen as necessary as many of my research participants suffer from work-related stress and sedentary lifestyles, but there is a bigger challenge when it comes to self-tracking. People with a busy schedule want something that’s simple and straightforward, but have mixed emotions towards all these “make things easy and attractive” designs to boost healthy behaviors. Many of my research participants love a sense of achievement and the joy that a game-like experience could bring. However, their experience with self-tracking is far from easy. All the interactions—recording, tracking, celebrating, and summarizing—demands extra work. The interpretations of numbers are detached from their daily routine, and engaging with the tracking device calls for extra attention. The plans that self-tracking apps provide ask for a lot of information and require users to meticulously manage their change of weight, calculate the intake and consumption of calories, and take times in between shifts to finish daily exercise quota. Many of the apps break down goals to daily actions and encourage continuous record-taking. Phone notifications will ring every day at a certain time, whether or not you are eating, chilling, or in a meeting.
More than half of my interviewees work overtime, and most of them are faced with various health concerns. They recognize that fitness and health are important, and some think that they need to be making lifestyle changes. However, the conflict associated with self-tracking is not only as it relates to a lack of time—since self-tracking apps break down your daily goal into 15-min ‘easy’ tasks—but also to the amount of mental resources that the whole idea of self-management takes. The quantification of goals, tasks, and rewards resembles work and are doubtless a form of hidden labor. Contrary to the image of these tasks being of the ‘easy,’ they are mentally and physically challenging. Relentless progress, non-stop monitoring and self-monitoring, and the interruptions protruding from daily routines all make self-tracking with an app ‘hard’ work. The stress from work, from the fitness tasks, and ultimately, from the demand of self-management and self-improvement, accumulates and reinforces the sense of burnout. One interviewee, in his 40s, described his cycle of stress, mentioning that the tiredness from work was the biggest obstacle. However, the fact that he couldn’t finish the simple daily task of exercise and “lost track” added a sense of self-blame and failure, which pushed him into deeper distress. Everything added up eventually to a point that he gave up on his exercise goals.
The idea of endless self-improvement is not alien to us as self-help books and “how-to” videos everywhere claim to help us make resolutions and make us hold the belief on making change for a ‘better self.’ As a society, we are also not unfamiliar with the self-blame after the resolutions fall apart and we fail to realize our promises to change. The origin of such beliefs is the individualization of society, which seeps through every aspect of our life: work, education, health, well-being, and selfhood, where we are made to believe that we are on our own. Without adequate community support and a robust social safety net, our health is also individualized, and health has become an individual choice. Self-tracking and wearable technologies epitomize such a belief. As we (seem to) gain control and knowledge of every bit of what is happening in our bodies, the responsibilities of making changes are shouldered upon us. The social norms—being fit, being efficient, and being responsible—are built into the design and internalized through our actions with self-tracking apps and wearables.
One outstanding aspect of such self-improvement is to equal productivity with responsibilities and self-care. The cult of productivity prevails as we are surrounded by such languages and discourse of producing and measuring values. Making a change is to log and register it with quantified numbers, i.e., to translate daily routines into challenges and achievements. Research has revealed that quantifying fitness and health will undermine a person’s intrinsic motivation by acting upon extrinsic numbers.[6] But in today’s culture of productivity, the line between intrinsic and extrinsic value blurs, and so as work and life, fitness and health, social and personal. The growth and improvement in numbers becomes a part of our selfhood as we detach ourselves from the environmental and social aspects of health and treat the body as a workable project.
This culture of productivity aligns with the commercial interests of health tech and with a hunger for data. For the users, their daily numbers are achievements and badges of honor for being a better self. For the Venture Capital supported businesses, the numbers are a gauge of a user’s ‘value’ of how much data can be harvested, and how many services, subscriptions and products can be sold. The hidden design language behind the frenetic narrative of improvement and progress is that the more engagement users make, the more they are valued as a savvy customer in the “ecosystem” of data. The scenario is promising, yet not enough to deliver a stable profit yet, as some of the most promising health tech start-ups, such as Peloton, are not faring well. This in turn leads us to question the long-held belief of health tech: is it actually productive to wrap fitness and health in the model of productivity? What might it mean to flatten every lifestyle change into taking courses, tailoring plans, and making achievements?
An interviewee joked about the wristband being a “digital handcuff.” “It does work sometimes,” she laughed. Scholars might agree with the Foucauldian metaphor that self-tracking is also self-surveillance. It’s about how power gets embedded in the technology and renders our bodies legible and manageable to politics.[7] But situated in living experiences, numbers acquire more meaning toward the practice of self-care. What do people talk about when they talk about their numbers? Beyond the sense of achievement, the urge for a change, and the cycle of self-blame, self-tracking has, however, given them a way to comprehend their health in a bigger picture. The human-tech relationship is a two-way bridge, that human livings are co-shaping the meanings of technology, linking to the historical, social, material and mundane context of “everyday life.”[8]
I asked my interviewees to send me screenshots and charts of their self-tracking records, and talked through the colored charts with some self-reflection questions, such as: How did you feel? What happened in your life when you achieved that number? What else did you notice throughout the tracking of your daily routine? It is a process of re-contextualizing each of their numbers, and it shows how varied and unpredictable our lives can be, versus the monotonous patterns and plans that self-tracking apps lay to them. For example, one interviewee recalled that after a stressful day and conflicts with her boss at work, she pushed herself further on the treadmill. “Look at my heart rate. It went up steadily, and I was getting into a flow where I felt in control and cleared up my mind.”
People re-associate their experiences, positive or negative, with their life events and changes, and what they value about their bodies. One important thing that many of them mentioned is the association between their workload and the fluctuation of the way their bodies perform. Self-tracking makes them more sensitive to their bodily changes, or how their bodies respond to stress, lack of physical activity, and an unhealthy diet. Some of them will choose a certain set of numbers to follow and try to maintain them at an acceptable level. For that, they tend to do less, thinning on daily tracking and recording rather than making more comprehensive plans or commitments. As one interviewee recalled, “It is enough to know roughly where I am at, and precise numbers don’t make too much sense.” The data from self-tracking are re-contextualized as life narratives, which help them maintain a balance of work and life, and negotiate a “self” that they can have control over, such as “keeping an eye on my resting heart rate.” In this way, self-tracking is seen as an interface to construct and understand their selfhood. It is a mixture of society’s expectations of self-management of health, and the social and personal restraints one must navigate.
Most of the self-tracking devices right now are commercial products, which are driven by data centric profit gains, and shape the image of a productive and responsible individual (as a consumer of health). But what we should learn about self-tracking is to look beyond the models of measuring productive behaviors towards lifestyle changes and situate them into living experiences, where data is given multiple meanings and interpretations. It can help people frame their health or illness narratives and reveal the social and structural predicaments that people struggle with.[9] There is a lot of potential for us to make the numbers our own.
[1] Diefenbach, Sarah. “The Potential and Challenges of Digital Well-being Interventions: Positive Technology Research and Design in Light of the Bitter-sweet Ambivalence of Change.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018): 331.
[2] Kelders, Saskia M., Robin N. Kok, Hans C. Ossebaard, and Julia EWC Van Gemert-Pijnen. “Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 14, no. 6 (2012): e152.
[3] Ruckenstein, Minna, and Natasha Dow Schüll. “The Datafication of Health.” Annual Review of Anthropology 46 (2017): 261-278.
[4] Smith, Gavin JD, and Ben Vonthethoff. “Health By Numbers? Exploring the Practice and Experience of Datafied Health.” Health Sociology Review 26, no. 1 (2017): 6-21.
[5] Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin, 2009.
[6] Lister, Cameron, Joshua H. West, Ben Cannon, Tyler Sax, and David Brodegard. “Just a Fad? Gamification in Health and Fitness Apps.” JMIR Serious Games 2, no. 2 (2014): e3413.
[7] Ajana, Btihaj. “Digital Health and the Biopolitics of the Quantified Self.” Digital Health 3 (2017): 2055207616689509.
[8] Fors, Vaike, Sarah Pink, Martin Berg, and Tom O’Dell. Imagining Personal Data: Experiences of Self-Tracking. Routledge, 2020.
[9] Ruckenstein, Minna. “Charting the Unknown: Tracking the Self, Experimenting with the Digital: Reflection.” In The Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology, pp. 253-271. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2022.
Ajana, Btihaj. “Digital Health and the Biopolitics of the Quantified Self.” Digital Health 3 (2017): 2055207616689509.
Diefenbach, Sarah. “The Potential and Challenges of Digital Well-being Interventions: Positive Technology Research and Design in Light of the Bitter-sweet Ambivalence of Change.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018): 331.
Fors, Vaike, Sarah Pink, Martin Berg, and Tom O’Dell. Imagining Personal Data: Experiences of Self-Tracking. Routledge, 2020.
Kelders, Saskia M., Robin N. Kok, Hans C. Ossebaard, and Julia EWC Van Gemert-Pijnen. “Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 14, no. 6 (2012): e152.
Lister, Cameron, Joshua H. West, Ben Cannon, Tyler Sax, and David Brodegard. “Just a Fad? Gamification in Health and Fitness Apps.” JMIR Serious Games 2, no. 2 (2014): e3413.
Ruckenstein, Minna. “Charting the Unknown: Tracking the Self, Experimenting with the Digital: Reflection.” In The Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology, pp. 253-271. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2022.
Ruckenstein, Minna, and Natasha Dow Schüll. “The Datafication of Health.” Annual Review of Anthropology 46 (2017): 261-278.
Smith, Gavin JD, and Ben Vonthethoff. “Health By Numbers? Exploring the Practice and Experience of Datafied Health.” Health Sociology Review 26, no. 1 (2017): 6-21.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin, 2009.
no-self
nathannobis
Woman looking in a mirror: does she see her self?
Article tags
Written by Muriel Leuenberger
The question of who gets to be a person is one of those old but never outdated classics in philosophy. Throughout history, philosophers have discussed which human beings are persons, when human beings start to be persons, when they are no longer the same person, and whether non-human beings can be persons – and the discussion continues.
The task of defining the concept of a person can be approached from a purely ontological angle, by looking at what kind of entities exist in the world. There are those beings we want to call persons – what unites them and what separates them from non-persons? This ontological project has, at least at first sight, nothing to do with how the world should be and purely with how it is.
But many moral practices are connected to this concept. Persons deserve praise and blame, they should not be experimented on without their consent, they can make promises, they should be respected. The status of personhood is connected to a moral status. Because of the properties persons have they deserve to be treated and can act in a certain way. Personhood is what can be called a thick concept. It combines descriptive and normative dimensions. To be a person one must meet certain descriptive conditions. But being a person also comes with a distinctive moral status.
Defining thick concepts is particularly tricky. Those definitions are not just judged for their descriptive plausibility but whether they imply acceptable moral practices. In the debate on personhood, philosophers have repeatedly drawn boundaries on the descriptive level that lead to normative implications they do not want to support. Notably, individuals who they would like to see treated as persons do not meet their criteria for personhood because they do not have certain cognitive capacities.[i] Most recently, this happened in this year’s John Locke Lecture by Susan Wolf on Selves like us.[ii] She argued compellingly for a definition of character as a complex of dispositions and tendencies that reflect and express one’s distinctive way of seeing the world. She furthermore seemed to imply that certain types of attitudes, such as resentment, gratitude, forgiveness, anger, or love (Strawson’s reactive attitudes[iii]), can only be directed towards ‘selves like us’ which meet her definition of having a character. In her account, character requires cognitive faculties of “active intelligence”. Because of this, the question arose what this implies for individuals with cognitive disorders. She replied that she would certainly not want to exclude them from being appropriate objects of reactive attitudes and would have to do more research to work out how they would fit in her framework.
There seems to be a disparity between our intuitions and opinions on who should be treated as a person and descriptive definitions of the term. One attempt at fixing this problem has been to stipulate that while the suggested definition of personhood excludes, for instance, people suffering from dementia from being persons, this does not undermine their moral status.[iv] But because the normative and descriptive dimensions are intertwined in thick concepts, such attempts at separating them do not seem to be successful. It’s too little too late to reassert the moral status of an individual whose personhood has just been denied. The rhetorical power of denying that someone is a person should not be underestimated – a reassurance that this does not affect their moral status seems insufficient to counteract it.
Personhood is usually defined via capacities, such as moral agency, autonomy, self-awareness, narration, or rationality. Those capacities require certain brain functions – they are tied to biological facts about the individual. But biology is fuzzy, gradual, and full of multiple but slightly different solutions for the same problem (e.g., for realizing a capacity). As David DeGrazia[v] argues, those capacities are multidimensional and gradational. For instance, there are different kinds of self-awareness (bodily, social, introspective) and they come in degrees. To know whether, for example, great apes are persons, we would have to define arbitrary cut-off points for the capacities that are defined as essential to personhood. Thus, personhood is a vague concept, meaning that there is no non-arbitrary way to define whether an individual is a person. Because it is also a thick concept, arbitrary cut-offs are particularly worrisome since they can have far-reaching normative implications.
In the face of those considerations, we should be aware of and thematize the limits of definitions of personhood (or selves). Marginal cases can and should remain undecided. This does not mean that philosophy has nothing to say about what is distinctive of persons. Identifying common properties of clear, paradigmatic cases of persons can make salient in which way marginal cases differ. Differences in moral practices can be accounted for through distinct properties, instead of an overarching term like personhood or self. This allows for more nuance in our moral practices.
Pattern theories of personhood or self, which take a range of properties and capacities into account, can be particularly helpful in this regard.[vi] According to a pattern-theory, personhood or self are constituted by a cluster of dimensions that interact with each other and that take a different value and weight for each individual. A self might, for instance, be constituted by embodied, experiential, affective, behavioral, intersubjective, and narrative dimensions. Someone becomes a person through the dynamic interaction of a range of capacities, such as, moral agency, autonomy, self-awareness, narration, and rationality. Changes to one dimension may cause modulations in others. Concepts like personhood or the self are not reducible to any one of these aspects but are complex systems that emerge from the dynamic interactions of those constituents.
Pattern theories can illuminate how a range of properties and capacities interrelate to produce characteristics typical of clear cases and make salient in which ways other individuals differ. Instead of either ascribing marginal cases the status of personhood or not, pattern theories can describe them in terms of different types of persons (with gradual transitions in-between) which warrant distinct moral practices. Thereby, they can help us to avoid the philosopher’s compulsion to draw clear lines where there are none.
[i] On the other hand, definitions of personhood can of course also appear to be overly inclusive.
[ii] Self and person are often used interchangeably. Definitions of the self face the same problems because the self tends be considered as a thick concept as well (albeit less obviously than in the case of personhood).
[iii] Strawson, P. F. (2008). Freedom and resentment and other essays. Routledge.
[iv] Schechtman, M. (1996). The Constitution of Selves. Cornell University Press.
[v] DeGrazia, D. (1997). Great apes, dolphins, and the concept of personhood. The Southern journal of philosophy, 35(3), 301-320.
[vi] Leuenberger, M. (Forthcoming) A Narrative Pattern-Theory of the Self. In: Personhood, Self-Consciousness, and the First-Person Perspective. Edited by Markus Hermann. Brill mentis.
Gallagher, S. (2013). A Pattern Theory of Self. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 443-443.
self-knowledge2
nathannobis
Learning earlier this year that I had Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) changed a lot for me. I finally realized that I was not a “bad worker” or didn’t have a “work ethic”. My work ethic just doesn’t look like a traditional one.
You’re probably aware that increasingly it’s not just adolescents who get ADHD diagnoses — more and older people are receiving a diagnosis of ADHD, or what’s known as adult ADHD. The fact it’s growing in prevalence means it’s also thankfully becoming less stigmatized. It also means a lot of people in the wider working population are looking to find ways to cope.
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (the term ADHD is more widely used now) covers a wide range of experiences and symptoms. The NIH defines Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinically as “an ongoing pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development.”
The list of basic symptoms of attention deficit disorders includes everything from trouble focusing and doing one task at a time, to staying organized — but also covers restlessness, mood swings, sleep disorders, problems with executive function, fidgeting, tapping or general impulsive behavior (interrupting people or difficulty delaying gratification). Taken together, any of these symptoms can make life either a little bit, or a lot, harder.
My ADD symptoms may not necessarily be the same as what someone else deals with, but the skills I’ve developed to cope may likely be helpful for attention deficit people, but could also be useful for almost anyone in the workplace. Let me give you an idea of how this might work on a daily basis.
Many people just sit down and get their work done, and it’s really as simple as that. After several hours at a desk, they have likely accomplished what they originally hoped to do – or some large portion of it – and can put their tasks away.
It’s not that the average person is 100% productive on a daily basis — far from it — but when they’re working on a project, the work proceeds in a fairly straightforward way. And it happens without constant worry, interruptions, detours or distractions. Some people do live within time constraints and what’s expected of them, and go about their day knowing it will go roughly the way they expect. Compared to a person who has ADHD, that’s a radically different life. It’s the difference between being able to focus on one item at a time, listen to your body, or move from one thing to the next with ease.
But for those of us in the workforce who struggle with ADHD, it doesn’t go like that too often.
To give you an idea, on any given morning I might sit down at my desk to work remotely, as I usually do — I’ll get up to pee one time at 10 am, realize there is a separate chore that needs to be done, and also that I need to wash my face or brush my teeth.
Some ADHD people struggle more with the tendency to daydream, but in my case, it’s often about fixating on the various things that need to get done. Usually the face washing or teeth brushing feels like it has to happen before the chore, so the chore may or may not ever get done. That in itself isn’t so bad, but the issue is with what happens to the original work I sat down to get started with prior to the bathroom break.
Reading this, you might think this level of distraction is tied to working a remote or work from home (WFH) job. But I’d argue, on the contrary, WFH or working remotely hasn’t caused any more substantial challenges for me as an ADHD person than a regular workplace was, for reasons I’ll get into here.
When I worked with an in-person team, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, I frequently felt overwhelmed. I took on a lot of projects, but rarely finished the ones assigned to me that had no set due date. I would make new to-do lists every day, but it was always easy to distract me if you just passed by the front desk, where I sat.
I loved the aspect of co-located working that involved getting to know my team and our clients in person. But in general it turns out I am much more organized when working from home, because there’s actually less to distract me.
Some basic examples: There’s less to do in terms of orchestrating my morning, or less distraction in terms of seeing coworkers in the physical office space. Our remote team at PF also has multiple modes of communication and context building — which include due dates, the history of the project, and what members of the team need to be included or updated. Having these forms of accountability built in ends up being incredibly helpful.
Working from home isn’t without challenges. It can be a little too easy to get caught up when my phone buzzes, or when it feels pressing to respond immediately to a notification. (We have a great post incidentally on why notifications truly are not your friend, and how blocking them can do wonders to protect your attention.)
Other days in my remote office, I might have 50,000+ thoughts about one project at work, and end up two hours deep into researching or planning – only to realize too late that the work I’m doing may not be helping me get that project done.
If that sounds stressful, believe me, it can be. The good news for anyone who struggles with their attention, or who has a ADHD diagnosis, is that it is possible to manage constant thought-jumping with the help of a few tools and tips.
Currently my biggest source of support is a therapist who helps me with mindfulness techniques to center myself. I’ve also found other methods to help me stay on task and finish my work, like coworking with a buddy. There are plenty of ideas out there that can help when you have that urge to do anything other than what’s in front of you. (And I know it’s not for lack of trying. I see you, ADD and ADHD friends!)
If you have trouble sitting still, getting started, or focusing on something for more than 10 minutes, here below I’m going to offer you some tips and tricks to help. I’ve picked up on a lot of these tips along the way to help me find my focus and do the work in a sustainable way.
Techniques like these can be part of an ADHD treatment plan, and help with building self-esteem, and confidence in your ability to get work done, as well as controlling environmental factors. It also helps ensure you don’t, for instance, get sucked into hours of focusing on a single project, and forget to take care of yourself or the other five projects on deck.
If I don’t have a roadmap for how things are going to go for the day, or for this particular project, I’ll end up getting distracted or demotivated and will choose to do something else. That’s why the roadmap is useful – to keep you from ending up in that tailspin. Creating plans might not be your strong suit, but if you ask yourself “what is the next smallest step I can take to push this forward?” you’ll find that it’s not too hard to set up a great project roadmap.
Tools like Momentum can also be a huge help with managing your lifestyle, work and symptoms — since it offers the building blocks for you to start planning.
I’ve talked about it before. The Pomodoro Technique which popularized using timers for productivity may not be for everyone, but timers as a tool can help a lot with getting started and sticking with tricky projects. Timers are great not just for doing work, but also for managing your breaks from work or schoolwork, so you don’t get too far off track.
I often put on a 10 or 15-minute timer and kick back on the couch with my guitar, or I pull out a book and give myself some time away from the screen. These mini power breaks boost my energy and help me get my creativity flowing again –- which incidentally is also great for getting back into the work.
You might want to consider the possibility of creating a list or menu of things you really like doing to recover on your breaks, so you don’t get stuck in limbo. Setting up reminders for when breaks in your day are coming up can help with this piece, too. You can use your calendar tool or alarms and reminders on your phone or another device.
This list of recovery pastimes and pleasures can include almost anything: meditating or catching up on reading, going for a walk. It could be yoga or video games, or watching a Netflix series you’ve been meaning to binge on. The point is it’s a way to preserve your free time for doing things that you actually enjoy, so it doesn’t get eaten up by other items. (This is a good tip whether or not you technically have an attention deficit disorder.)
One of my favorite ways to control my space and energy is with music. I switch between different genres, but often find myself feeling most content with ambient music and sounds — especially to keep on in the background while I work. By the time afternoon rolls around, in contrast, I tend to need more focus, so I put on some house-electronic music to keep the energy high. Sometimes I use ocean sounds, or “brown noise” when the movement of the music gets too distracting for me.
Here are some of my favorite sounds to put on in the background:
With ADD, your brain constantly craves dopamine, which can cause lack of focus and a constant search for distractions when the project we’re working on doesn’t spark that dopamine. Helping create novelty in your day can actually help boost dopamine, and distract you less!
I got these tips from a few different TikTok creators, and they’ve been super useful:
These are just a few of the ways you can work with your body and attention when you start to lose focus, rather than against it.
There are no clear causes of ADHD, but there are plenty of non-stimulant, behavioral therapy techniques out there that can help you cope. In fact, these techniques can also be super helpful for people who struggle with attention, even without an ADHD diagnosis. ADHD medications can be helpful for many folks too, but it’s only one line of defense when coming up with ways to live and focus better.
Learning about these techniques hopefully shows you how many opportunities exist for you to create space for yourself, and the specific way your brain works within your workday! The simple tricks I listed above take less than five minutes and generally leave you feeling pumped up and ready to continue working.
And, though I work from home and have the luxury to be able to get up, and take regular breaks, it isn’t impossible to do any of these things at your place of work. It might even be fun to get others involved! Consider doing something like a morning stretch circle or an afternoon walk with a teammate.
If you give yourself space to be yourself, you might find that your work comes easier to you. Try sharing these ideas with your friends and family members to see if they find the ideas helpful too – and let me know if any of the tricks worked for you!
The post Strategies For Thriving In A Remote Workplace With ADD & ADHD appeared first on Productive Flourishing.
Two of the biggest Nordic brands have united to bring us the BASTUA collection, launching globally in March 2023. The limited-edition series of 26 products, created by home furnishings giant IKEA and iconic printmaker Marimekko, brings together Nordic design and self-care rituals. From furniture to glassware to textiles, vibrant patterns reflect nature back at you.
“Collaborating with Marimekko was a natural choice for IKEA as we are both committed to enabling a better everyday life at home, and with the BASTUA collection, it begins with focusing on wellness first,” says Henrik Most, Creative Leader at IKEA. “The collaboration encapsulates the sensations of endless summers and the simple and aesthetic beauty of Nordic nature in furniture and accessories for the home.”
“BASTUA” describes a sauna in Småland, the region in southern Sweden where IKEA was founded. Self-care and Nordic sauna were the starting points of the collection that’s meant to be used when relaxing outdoors in warm weather or simply winding down at the end of a long day.
The launch of BASTUA marks the first time that Marimekko has designed prints exclusively for a brand collaboration. “Capturing the essence of Marimekko’s Finnish roots and its connection to the historic origins of sauna culture was a fundamental part of the design journey and the creation of the BASTUA prints,” says Rebekka Bay, Creative Director at Marimekko. When gathering inspiration from nature, the brand gravitated towards the large, decorative rhubarb leaves that are often found growing near saunas in Finland. You’ll find it throughout the collection, including on the ever-popular FRAKTA bag.
Within the BASTUA collection lies furniture, glassware, and textiles that include robes and towels – and even the first-ever sauna bucket – among other items. These are all things one might traditionally use when enjoying a sauna, or right before or after the ritual. You’ll find elements that can be used during a meal, a place to sit and feel grounded, and even a candle infused with the scents of elderflower, rhubarb, and sweet vanilla.
BASTUA’s furniture pieces are inspired by classic Nordic design. A side table offers a clever feature: the collection’s patterned trays fit perfectly on the top. You may even want to pull up the coordinating bench to enjoy a relaxing moment of Zen.
“Nordic furniture design has always been characterized by clean lines and simple constructions that focus on function” says Mikael Axelsson, Designer at IKEA. “The BASTUA side table is my take on this heritage, as it is made of birch veneer and with a high edge that keeps things in place.”
The BASTUA collection feels like a perfect partnership, neither pattern nor design overshadows the other. It’s a wonderful marriage between two brands that complement one another in harmony.
To learn more about BASTUA, visit ikea.com.
A “white light” added to traffic signals could enable self-driving vehicles to help control traffic flow—and let human drivers know what’s going on.
In computational simulations, the new approach significantly improves travel time through intersections and reduces fuel consumption.
“This concept we’re proposing for traffic intersections, which we call a ‘white phase,’ taps into the computing power of autonomous vehicles (AVs) themselves,” says Ali Hajbabaie, an associate professor of civil, construction, and environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, and corresponding author of the paper in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
“The white phase concept also incorporates a new traffic signal, so that human drivers know what they are supposed to do. Red lights will still mean stop. Green lights will still mean go. And white lights will tell human drivers to simply follow the car in front of them.”
The white phase concept rests on the fact that it is possible for AVs to communicate wirelessly with both each other and the computer controlling the traffic signal. When enough AVs are approaching the intersection, this would activate the white light.
The white light is a signal that AVs are coordinating their movement to facilitate traffic through the intersection more efficiently. Any non-automated vehicles—those being driven by a person—would simply be required to follow the vehicle in front of them: if the car in front of them stops, they stop; if the car in front of them goes through the intersection, they go through the intersection.
When too many vehicles approaching the intersection are being controlled by drivers, rather than AVs, the traffic light would revert to the conventional green-yellow-red signal pattern.
“Granting some of the traffic flow control to the AVs is a relatively new idea, called the mobile control paradigm,” Hajbabaie says. “It can be used to coordinate traffic in any scenario involving AVs. But we think it is important to incorporate the white light concept at intersections because it tells human drivers what’s going on, so that they know what they are supposed to do as they approach the intersection.
“And, just to be clear, the color of the ‘white light’ doesn’t matter. What’s important is that there be a signal that is clearly identifiable by drivers.”
The researchers first introduced a “white phase” traffic intersection concept in 2020. However, that initial concept relied on a centralized computing approach, with the computer controlling the traffic light being responsible for receiving input from all approaching AVs, making the necessary calculations, and then telling the AVs how they should proceed through the intersection.
“We’ve improved on that concept, and this paper outlines a white phase concept that relies on distributed computing—effectively using the computing resources of all the AVs to dictate traffic flow,” Hajbabaie says.
“This is both more efficient, and less likely to fall prey to communication failures. For example, if there’s an interruption or time lag in communication with the traffic light, the distributed computing approach would still be able to handle traffic flow smoothly.”
To test the performance of the distributed computing white phase concept, the researchers made use of microscopic traffic simulators. These simulators are complex computational models designed to replicate real-world traffic, down to the behavior of individual vehicles. Using these simulators, the researchers were able to compare traffic behavior at intersections with and without the white phase, as well as how the number of AVs involved influences that behavior.
“The simulations tell us several things,” Hajbabaie says. “First, AVs improve traffic flow, regardless of the presence of the white phase. Second, if there are AVs present, the white phase further improves traffic flow. This also reduces fuel consumption, because there is less stop-and-go traffic. Third, the higher the percentage of traffic at a white phase intersection that is made up of AVs, the faster the traffic moves through the intersection and the better the fuel consumption numbers.”
When only 10-30% of the traffic at a white phase intersection was made up of AVs, the simulations found there were relatively small improvements in traffic flow. But as the percentage of AVs at white phase intersections increased, so did the benefits.
“That said, even if only 10% of the vehicles at a white phase intersection are autonomous, you still see fewer delays,” Hajbabaie says. “For example, when 10% of vehicles are autonomous, you see delays reduced by 3%. When 30% of vehicles are autonomous, delays are reduced by 10.7%.”
The researchers acknowledge that AVs are not ready to adopt the new distributed computing approach tomorrow, nor are governments going to install brand new traffic lights at every intersection in the immediate future.
“However, there are various elements of the white phase concept that could be adopted with only minor modifications to both intersections and existing AVs,” Hajbabaie says. “We also think there are opportunities to test drive this approach at specific locations.
“For example, ports see high volumes of commercial vehicle traffic, for which traffic flow is particularly important. Commercial vehicles seem to have higher rates of autonomous vehicle adoption, so there could be an opportunity to implement a pilot project in that setting that could benefit port traffic and commercial transportation.”
Source: NC State
The post Do traffic signals need a fourth light for self-driving cars? appeared first on Futurity.
FreshRSS